Post

Zordennox wrote:

Ethnopluralism does not posit that there is equality among people. It says that differences, whatever those may be, in people groups must be preserved in their traditional state. You can see ethnopluralism as a sort of traditionalist doctrine, with which fascism has amicable relations.

And those differences must be preserved—according to ethnopluralism—on the basis of an equal and shared right that all ethnicities supposedly have, that I would call 'right to exist'. This is egalitarianism, to affirm that every group have basic, natural and shared rights implies that they're all equal essentially (because rights aren't naturally given but are created out of a purpose and a motive justified by greater aims; rights are means, not foundations), and that they all have the requirements to have a place in the concert of the nations, just because they exist and present their unique features. Groups have their own way to determine their right to exist basing themselves on the goals that they have historically achieved for the survival of their people, not because they happen to hold differences with other groups. Furthermore, this would be achieved under "coexistence" and the collaboration of every ethnicity, a view that I would deem as utopian considering the nature of the national struggle of any people, which is not one of independence and autonomy only, but expansion and survival in hostile environments.

Zordennox wrote:

Conquering other ethnicities is not a requirement for maintaining a civilization. The success or failure of civilizations has to do with the spiritual and social conditions in that civilization, not what others have to win or lose.

History says other thing though. I think it's a widely accepted fact that the civilizational progress of a people has as a consequence, the expansion of their culture over inferior orders (as the Jerarca said), among other things. As such, the benefits obtained by conquest are incentives for the flourishing civilization to keep growing and advancing. A prolonged status quo means death and recession.

Zordennox wrote:

Again, conquering other ethnicities does not create a sphere of sovereignty or national consciousness for any civilization. I would argue, that would divide a civilization: with lethal consequences. When you conquer a foreign people, they become your problem. The British Empire conquered many ethnicities throughout the world, and now they are having a reverse affect backfire.

Many of the ethnicities 'conquered' by the british weren't properly assimilated even, most of them were used just as cheap workers (read: slaves) for their industries, they were not given a place in the British culture, as it could have happened with several ethnicities under the Roman Empire. The truth is that even the differences between groups manifest in unique "styles" of conquering, and a style could leave its mark in history, or not. The Roman Empire conquered ethnicities and used them as building blocks for the progress of the Empire, and those ethnicities would stop being separate from the roman imperial consciousness